[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4Oyw974Zg274C2-1BcOphEJY63gx7v2QTQuULOJBzknig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:38:09 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] slub: Fastpath optimization (especially for RT) V1
2014-12-18 0:36 GMT+09:00 Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
>> Ping... and I found another way to remove preempt_disable/enable
>> without complex changes.
>>
>> What we want to ensure is getting tid and kmem_cache_cpu
>> on the same cpu. We can achieve that goal with below condition loop.
>>
>> I ran Jesper's benchmark and saw 3~5% win in a fast-path loop over
>> kmem_cache_alloc+free in CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>>
>> 14.5 ns -> 13.8 ns
>>
>> See following patch.
>
> Good idea. How does this affect the !CONFIG_PREEMPT case?
One more this_cpu_xxx makes fastpath slow if !CONFIG_PREEMPT.
Roughly 3~5%.
We can deal with each cases separately although it looks dirty.
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
XXX
#else
YYY
#endif
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists